Re: TPA and ebXML Header question

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

A minor tweak below, otherwise, I concur.

Chris

Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM wrote:
> 
> Summing up what I think I have seen on MS ACKS (composite of opinion, not
> necessarily consensus):
> 
> MS ACKs are needed (this is essential to reliable messaging)
> 
> The messaging service should not require blocking of a logical channel
> until an MS ACK is received.
> 
> Blocking may in any case be enforced by business-level responses.
> 
> Partner Profile and Partner Agreement should specify whether blocking is
								^^^^^^^
s/b sequencing IMHO. That is to say that at the business process level
(not conversation) the sequence of messages might be enforced/required.

> required.
>    Note:  in my opinion, this tag would refer to the messaging service
>    ACKs, not the business process.  Blocking at the business process level
>    would be specified in the business process model and manifest itself in
>    the PA in the response definitions and sequencing rules or whatever
>    equivalent we come up with.
> 
> New point:  For many applications, the latency effects of blocking at the
> MS level would be substantially reduced if what we are calling a logical
> channel is really a conversation.  A good implementation would provide for
> many concurrent conversations even within a single PA.  Thus when the MS
> blocks until receiving an ACK it would only affect the conversation of
> which the message and ACK are a part.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS on 10/04/2000 10:17:01 AM
> 
> To:   Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
> cc:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David RR Webber
>       <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>,
>       "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>,
>       "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  RE: TPA and ebXML Header question
> 
> It is fine if a specific business process utilizes business level acks.
> A robust ms also needs ms level acks.
> There is a need for both.
> 
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> 
> Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 10/03/2000 07:14:05 PM
> 
> To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David RR Webber
>       <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>
> cc:   Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org"
>       <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org"
>       <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  RE: TPA and ebXML Header question
> 
> Marty and David,
> 
> All of the business aspects of document processing,
> including what kinds of acks are expected, are defined
> by the Commercial Transaction patterns that are part
> of the BP Collaboration Metamodel now (finally)
> posted on the BP work page at:
> http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/business_process/wip/index.html
> 
> (They are actually pretty much the same as RosettaNet,
> so the POC vendors should know how to handle them.)
> 
> -Bob Haugen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:     Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [SMTP:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent:     Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:13 PM
> To:  David RR Webber
> Cc:  Zvi Bruckner; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org;
> ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  Re: TPA and ebXML Header question
> 
> DW,
> 
> Isn't the confirm you are talking about part of the business process?  It
> seems to me that you want the business process to say "I got it" rather
> than having the messaging service say "I was able to parse it OK and passed
> it on to the business process but I it isn't my job to know if the business
> process actually got it or fumbled the ball."
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 10/03/2000
> 06:46:02 PM
> 
> To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,
>       ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  Re: TPA and ebXML Header question
> 
> Message text written by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> >I believe there is a strong case for an optimistic
> protocol: send only "checked not ok" and let the business-level response
> imply that the message was delivered to the application with no error.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty<
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> Marty - this will depend on the business workflow use case.  Some
> will require an explicit confirm - before proceeding to the next step.
> 
> We should support both models - but default to
> 'delivery accepted without confirm'.
> 
> DW.

-- 
    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903